A blog commenting on various aspects of the private collecting and trade in archaeological artefacts today and their effect on the archaeological record.

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Glasgow Takes a Comparative Look at Looters

.

The Glasgow-based
"trafficking culture" project is announcing that among its ongoing
projects is going to be one called: "Looters: a comparative study"
looking, it said, at "different types of looters across Europe". Suzie
Thomas describes her ongoing research in the following terms:

Around the world, there are a number of terms used for people who loot
archaeological and cultural material: pothunters (South West USA); tombaroli
(Italy), Raubgräber (Germany and Austria), nighthawks
(UK and Ireland), huaqueros
(Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia). These different terms usually reflect the
local
language, and sometimes also refer to the nature of the looting taking
place
(for example a nighthawk always uses a metal detector). However, there
are
other, sometimes less obvious distinctions, not only between the terms,
but
around the nature of looting itself in specific contexts. This research
project aims to investigate the nature and drivers of looting
archaeological material in a selection of countries. This takes into
account
the typical profile of the looters (for example is it a hobby that has
strayed
into illegal behaviour on occasion, one of several criminal activities
carried
out by the looter, or part of a more organised system?). Focussing on
Europe,
the economic, legislative and cultural contexts of selected case studies
will
be analysed to assess their impact on the nature and prevalence of
looting. The
nature, prevalence and financial desirability of archaeological material
from
different countries is also taken into account, as is the degree of engagement
between treasure hunting communities and heritage professionals. The overall aim of this project is to provide reliable cross-country data on
types of and motivations for looting, in order to support the informed analysis
of current and proposed legal and policy responses to the problem. An in-depth
understanding of the social practice of looting, whether as a hobby or as a
career, is an important baseline of knowledge from which to analyse regulatory
responses to the issue. The range of such contemporary regulatory responses
will be reviewed as part of this project, and recommendations will emerge on
what works in controlling looting in its different forms.

I
think it is going to be very difficult collecting information on the
aspects discussed, I really cannot imagine Ms Thomas walking into a
"tombaroli club" and asking one of the them: "tell me, Luigi, how did
you start this, was it just a hobby which has strayed
into illegal behaviour on occasion?". It seems to me that this young
British researcher forgets that in most of the countries she mentions,
the activity discussed has been illegal from the outset. It is in very
few countries that one can go out looting recreationally as a "hobby",
and the fact that Britain is one of them seems here to be colouring the
proposed research agenda. It seems to me rather odd to consider
pothunters and ignore arrowhead collectors, in the same way in Britain
to concentrate on so-called "nighthawks" and (apparently) ignore lithics
collectors, mudlarks, dump diggers, aeroplane crash site searchers and
wreck divers. I look forward to seeing her presentation of "The
nature, prevalence and financial desirability of archaeological material
from
different countries" as there has been very little work of this type
done in the past and regional differences in this seem worth exploring.
Also the social background to the phenomenon that it will be useful to
have more information on, if the researcher can get it. the problem is
that the activity is by nature a clandestine one, and the sources of
information not so varied (police reports, court documents mostly) and
accessible. Still, we wish her luck.

But I hope that
before she publishes the results she can step back from that
PAS-mentality betrayed by the mention of ascertaining "the degree of
engagement
between treasure hunting communities and heritage professionals". In
many cases, however much supporters of collecting may regret it, the
only "engagement" there can be is through jailcell bars. If the activity
is illegal (in order to protect the finite and fragile archaeological
resource) why should heritage professionals "engage" with those that
wilfully ignore those laws to destroy archaeological evidence and sites
and monuments?

No comments:

About Me

British archaeologist living and working in Warsaw, Poland. Since the early 1990s (or even longer) a primary interest has been research on artefact hunting and collecting and the market in portable antiquities in the international context and their effect on the archaeological record.

Abbreviations used in this blog

"coiney" - a term I use for private collector of dug up ancient coins, particularly a member of the Moneta-L forum or the ACCG

"heap-of-artefacts-on-a-table-collecting" the term rather speaks for itself, an accumulation of loose artefacts with no attempt to link each item with documented origins. Most often used to refer to metal detectorists (ice-cream tubs-full) and ancient coin collectors (Roman coins sold in aggregated bulk lots)